-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 11:14:02AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > "Operator class group", unwieldy as it is, conveys the meaning that we > > are talking about _sets of operator classes_. The nicer terms I have > > seen all lose a bit of that ring to me. > > The thing is that in the proposal as it currently stands, we're *not* > talking about sets of operator classes, because a group can contain > "free standing" operators as well. So the apparent technical accuracy > is really a bit misleading.
Hm. Singleton classes? > As I'm currently thinking about it, a group is a collection of > compatible operators, and the fact that it has some of those operators > in common with an opclass is almost incidental --- not from the index > AM's point of view maybe, but there will be large chunks of the system > that work with groups without ever thinking about opclasses. Can you imagine a class straddling two groups? [...] > "opclassgroup" ... ugh. Indeed. regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFhCpZBcgs9XrR2kYRArzKAJ46mOwDkfW+bIC+HEKBROCYwHbk7wCfQCu+ yc0pj2yMXf+HUdJiVwq3Q/o= =gA/y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate